13.1M Americans remain unemployed / White House threw secret "Alice in Wonderland" bash in October 2009

The two stories enclosed tell the tale regardless of what the White House may want to spin politically....Unemployment is the issue that most challenges our nation as we need to have people working to improve our economy. Unemployment checks are a patch but to ensure that workers become consumers, they need a job and a regular income.

The fact that the average American understands this simple concept but politicians fail to grasp this is the issue in the 2012 election. Based on what we have seen over the last three years, the President hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Meanwhile, the level of insensitivity shown by the Obama Administration to those out of work is demonstrated by the article at this link -

White House threw secret 'Alice in Wonderland' bash during recession - NY POST

A White House “Alice in Wonderland” costume ball — put on by Johnny Depp and Hollywood director Tim Burton — proved to be a Mad-as-a-Hatter idea that was never made public for fear of a political backlash during hard economic times, according to a new tell-all.

“The Obamas,” by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor, tells of the first Halloween party the first couple feted at the White House in October 2009. It was so over the top that “Star Wars” creator George Lucas sent the original Chewbacca to mingle with invited guests.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/in_blunderland_hKpNQkHfvpEWe4F51kI4dP#ixzz1it445MEw

Clueless. Totally clueless. The recession was at it's worse so they hid the lavish affair from the press and the public for fear of a backlash. And people wonder why those who want Obama out of the White House are so opposed to this Politician.

Obama and his lecturing wife really don't care about the average citizen or the problems of our country. They are too busy running up a luxury tab on the taxpayer's dime. Obama is unworthy of being in the White House and has shown a complete lack of understanding for what is required as Leader of our nation. Leaders take care of the needs of others first, as that is what is required. With millions losing their homes, the Obama's treated themselves first.


13.1M Americans remain unemployed
Jan. 7, 2012
Written by Derek Kravitz
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — For many people whose job prospects faded most during the recession, 2011 brought a small dose of relief.

When unemployment was surging, the youngest U.S. workers, the oldest, those without college degrees and men as a whole all suffered disproportionately. Last year, those groups — whose unemployment rates still exceed the national average — had better success than others in finding jobs, according to Labor Department data released Friday.

Many found low-paying jobs in technology firms and as health care technicians, machinists, autoworkers, hotel and store clerks and waiters.

All told, about 13.1 million Americans remain unemployed. About 2.5 million have quit looking for work altogether.

Education

Unemployment among workers with less than a high school diploma fell from 15.1 percent to 13.8 percent. By comparison, unemployment for those with a bachelor's degree declined by a smaller margin, from 4.8 percent to 4.1 percent.

"The less-educated tend to suffer more in downturns and recover more rapidly when employment picks up," said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard labor and economics professor.

Gender

The unemployment rate for men fell more than twice as fast as for women in 2011. Hiring was strong among male-dominated industries like manufacturing. And more men entered some fields long dominated by women, including health care and retail.

The unemployment rate for men sank from 10 percent to 8.7 percent. But women remain better off. Their rate fell from 8.6 percent to 8.3 percent.

Age

In 2011, employment prospects were best for workers ages 20 to 24 and those 65 and up. Some young men are being hired for entry-level positions at lower pay than in years past. And some retirees returned to the workforce last year after their retirement portfolios took a beating over the past four years.

Unemployment is dropping faster for those ages 35 to 64. But part of the reason is that a disproportionate share of people in this age group have given up looking for jobs. Once people stop looking for work, they're no longer counted as unemployed.

Race

Unemployment fell most among Hispanics. Their rate declined from 12.9 percent to 11 percent. In part, that's because a larger-than-average share of Hispanics have stopped looking for work.

Immigration has also slowed. That means there are fewer foreign-born job-seekers in the United States.

Since the recession ended more than two years ago, the employment gap between blacks and whites has widened. The rate for African-Americans was unchanged last year at 15.8 percent. By comparison, white unemployment fell from 8.5 percent to 7.5 percent.

The President of the United States needs to " Man Up " as his failure is an embarrassment to the citizens of our great country

The tantrums coming from the White House and the non-stopping stammering are the signs that the Obama Administration is toast.

No one believes them and the markets showed that to the world.

Be a MAN Mr. President and take a lesson from HARRY TRUMAN who had a sign on the same desk you sit at each day that said " The BUCK stops here !"

Obama is unworthy to even think he should sit at that desk as he is only keeping the chair warm for the next occupant of the Oval Office. He needs to MAN UP, accept that his failing as President is his responsibility and admit it to the voters. To continue to deny what is obvious to the rest of the world is both immature and delusional.

Let us PRAY that it is someone with more sense than this embarrssing poser that was elected in 2008 who has been a national embarrassment since day one.


Ron Hart: Stop the blame. Do something!
By RON HART - Orange County Register

As they always do, our representatives in Congress raised the debt ceiling and said they were going to make cuts later. Then they fled Washington to go on a long vacation. Why not address this now? Why the suspense? Congress has not left so many things dangling in front of so many Americans since Anthony Weiner left.

They called what they did a "two-step deal." It looks like both were side steps.

Remember, Obama kept using the word "bankrupt" and threatened not to pay Social Security checks. The country was not nearly bankrupt; he just used the word as a scare tactic to get his way. Obama blames everything on someone else: the Tea Party for forcing budget cuts or Japan for having an earthquake. I guess he is blaming God, too.

Blame and threats are not a strategy.

The Democrats called those wanting to cut the spending "terrorists" who were holding the country hostage. Obama might want to be careful; being unable to negotiate the release of hostages invites even more comparisons to Jimmy Carter.

It is getting more dangerous in the Obama administration. Last week a man hopped over the White House fence and made a run for it. Then the Secret Service caught him and told Mr. Geithner he had to finish his term as Treasury Secretary. It turns out it is much easier being the problem than the solution.

After months of indicating that he might leave his post as Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner said he would stay. In the end, he decided to keep his safe government job since he determined there is no way of finding a good job in this economy.

Interestingly, last week it was also reported that Washington, D.C. has the highest use of cocaine, pot and alcohol. That explains a lot. The S&P downgrade was not a decision; it was more like an intervention.

It is like Obama and the Democrats were called into a room to find S&P, Moody's, the U.S. dollar and the stock market, who told them, "We love you, but you have a spending addiction." I don't care if they have a drug problem; it is their spending that is hurting others.

If Obama wants to borrow again soon he is going to have to get his financier buddy, George Soros, to co-sign for him.

Let's be as clear as we can. Federal spending has gone to $3.8 trillion per year and tax revenue remains at $2.1 per year. We run annual losses of $1.7 trillion – and climbing – and Geithner and Obama are blaming S&P and the Tea Party for the downgrade? Wow.

The $14 trillion dollar debt is not so much the problem; we are projected to have a $27 trillion debt in 10 years. For Obama and Geithner to blame S&P for it is like being late for two years on payments for their big screen TV and then shooting the repo man who comes to get it.

Their new stall is the "Super Committee" to be appointed to cut the budget down the road. They are just so delusional that they will call on Superman, Captain America, Green Hornet, Iron Man, Superwoman, Spiderman and Batman to cut the budget. I presume Barney Frank will be Batman; he spends his time with Robin, who spends a lot of time on the bat pole. Only those egomaniacs in Washington could call themselves "super" anything. I still snicker when they are called "The Honorable...."

Obama used his media arms, NBC, CBS and ABC, to make political points in prime time and told people to call their representatives. The "post-partisan president" was surprised that few called to support his spending on entitlements and that the vast majority favored spending cuts. Voters do not wait on hold for an hour to talk to a congressman's intern in order to leave the message "Just compromise."

The dysfunction of Washington is such a disaster that al-Qaida is claiming responsibility for it. The good news is Obama will soon be making taxpayer-funded visits to swing states in the Midwest, and he will be trying to save jobs – mainly his.

Ron Hart is a syndicated op-ed humorist, award-winning author and TV/radio commentator. Email Ron@RonaldHart.com or visit www.RonaldHart.com

Calls it like it is......

Article in the CSM pretty much sums it up.......POTUS' approval rating is lower than whale snot at the bottom of the ocean.....and rightly so.....he spent trillions and we are WORSE off than before.......

Obstacles to Obama's reelection, starting with low public opinion
By Brad Knickerbocker – Sun Apr 17, Christian Science Monitor

As he launches into a week of town hall meetings, freshly invigorated by his tougher talk on a political vision that includes more taxes for the wealthy and protection for progressive programs, President Obama faces a tough political reality.

He’s as low as he’s ever been in the eyes of the public – particularly among the independent voters he’ll need to win reelection next year.
In that sense, he’s in at least some good company. Among recent presidents, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton faced a similar obstacle in their first term. Reagan and Clinton survived; Carter was shown the door.

The latest Gallup Daily tracking three-day average shows 41 percent of Americans (and only 35 percent of independents) approving of the job Obama is doing as president. That ties his low, registered three times previously – twice in August 2010 and once in October 2010.

“President Obama is now as unpopular as he has been at any time since he became president,” Jeffrey Jones writes in a Gallup analysis of the most recent polling.

The bump-along economy and high gas prices at the pump are among major factor, Gallup finds, plus the tea party-fueled House of Representatives now run by Republicans.
“His ability to navigate these challenges will help determine whether he will be elected to a second term as president,” Jones writes.
Winning that second term now becomes virtually a full-time job, since everything a president does has a political dimension testing his ability to communicate his specific position as well as broader vision.
How well can he be expected to do? At this point, two prominent conservative columnists come to very different conclusions.
“It doesn’t take a genius to see that Obama is very likely to be reelected,” writes David Brooks of the New York Times, who notes that Obama “hit the political sweet spot with his speech” at George Washington University last Wednesday.
“Every few years, Republicans try to reform the welfare delivery systems to make them more marketlike.” Brooks writes. “Every few years, voters, even Republican voters, reject this. The situation today is slightly less hostile to these ideas, but not much.”
Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal begs to differ.
“Barack Obama can be taken, and his adversaries haven't even noticed,” she wrote Saturday. “In fact, he will likely lose in 2012.”
Her reasoning?
“Internationally, he's involved in a confused effort that involves bombing Libyan government troops and sometimes their rebel opponents, leaving the latter scattered and scurrying…. Domestically, the president's opponents seized the high ground on the great issue of the day, spending and debt, and held it after the president's speech this week. In last week's budget duel, the president was outgunned by Republicans in the House and outclassed by Paul Ryan, who offered seriousness and substance as a unique approach to solving our fiscal problems.”
Noonan points to other polls bringing bad news for Obama: An Ipsos survey with 69 percent of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track; a Zogby poll with just 38 percent of respondents saying Obama deserves reelection.
The White House and Obama’s reelection brain trust in Chicago are reading the same polls, of course.
Obama’s strength in 2008 was his ability to rouse and inspire not only his younger, more liberal base but independents and many moderate Republicans as well. The differences with John McCain – in style even more so than in substance – made all the difference. Obama was much better at connecting with individuals, small groups, and mass rallies. And of course, he was so totally new in terms of age, race, and background.
He’s not new anymore.
So this week Obama will conduct three town hall meetings – one in northern Virginia, one in Reno, Nev., and one streamed live on Facebook from company headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif. He’ll also attend political fund raisers in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The Obama campaign is expected to spend upwards of $1 billion getting him reelected. Given the way things are going – at least in the polls – he may need every bit of that.

Experts....

Yes, the First Couple are a real pair of " Experts " all right..... Expert BS artists

" The White House is flying without a strategy ....we have a reactive presidency.... not a strategic one."

As a HR professional, one of the key things I coach Business leaders in is to be " Proactive " not " Reactive " when dealing with issues and/or problems.

Proactive leaders anticipate issues before they become larger problems...they delve into the issues to find the key parts of it and solve the problem. Reactive leaders are like a wind vane - they go wherever the fickle winds of crisis blow without any real direction for others to follow.....

Here's a great example - Let’s take two swimmers on the choppy seas. The difference between them is that the proactive swimmer anticipates that there will be waves, whereas the reactive one is painfully surprised by each wave.

The difference is one of perspective. The proactive swimmer sees the big picture: each wave is not an isolated incident, but is part of a pattern. While there is stress in dealing with difficult circumstances, there is a consistency and a logic to the environment. There’s a degree of predictability.

With this bigger picture in mind, the proactive swimmer is able to adapt to the ups and downs. As he does so, he “learns” the patterns of the waves from inside out, so that his reactions become more and more spontaneous, more and more in tune with the rhythm of the waves.

So, being proactive means being able to anticipate what the future will be, and to react accordingly before it actually happens.

What is it that prevents the reactive swimmer (our President) from doing so? It could be lack of information. There are plenty of events in life that we simply cannot predict. It could also be lack of intelligence: some people are better than others at thinking in terms of patterns.

But let’s assume, for the moment, that our two swimmers have both the same levels of information and intelligence. Then, the difference between them would simply be that the proactive swimmer has enough energy to take in the available information and adapt to it. In contrast, the reactive swimmer is exhausted and overwhelmed (“Somebody get me out of here, please!”).

Gee - the "reactive" swimmer paints a pretty accurate description of the knucklehead that we elected in 2008, doesn't it?? Lurching from crisis to crisis with no clear idea or plan on how to deal with an issue before it becomes out-of-control.....NOT what we need.

I think this country needs to be careful as this bumbling fool will likely be tossed out on his arse in 2012 BUT the last thing we need is for the opposition to hand us a new President who will be just as unable to act decisively when we need a Leader and not a windvane....


How Obama turned on a dime toward war
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, March 18, 2011 - Foriegnpolicy.com

At the start of this week, the consensus around Washington was that military action against Libya was not in the cards. However, in the last several days, the White House completely altered its stance and successfully pushed for the authorization for military intervention against Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. What changed?

The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as "extremely contentious." Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.

But Obama's stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention - instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."

Inside the administration, senior officials were lined up on both sides. Pushing for military intervention was a group of NSC staffers including Samantha Power, NSC senior director for multilateral engagement; Gayle Smith, NSC senior director for global development; and Mike McFaul, NSC senior director for Russia. .

On the other side of the ledger were some Obama administration officials who were reportedly wary of the second- and third-degree effects of committing to a lengthy military mission in Libya. These officials included National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was also opposed to attacking Libya and had said as much in several public statements.

Not all of these officials were in Tuesday night's meeting.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called into the meeting over the phone, a State Department official confirmed. She was traveling in the region to get a first-hand look at how the new U.S. Middle East strategy is being received across the Arab world. Denied a visit with Egyptian youth leaders on the same day she strolled through Tahir Square, Clinton may have been concerned that the United States was losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab youth at the heart of the revolution.

When Clinton met with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday, she didn't lay out whether the United States had a favored response to the unfolding crisis in Libya, leaving her European counterparts completely puzzled. She met Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris but declined to respond positively to his request for assistance. This all gave the impression that Clinton was resisting intervention. In fact, she supported intervention, State Department official said, but had to wait until the Tuesday night meeting so that she didn't get out ahead of U.S. policy.

At the end of the Tuesday night meeting, Obama gave U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice instructions to go the U.N. Security Council and push for a resolution that would give the international community authority to use force. Her instructions were to get a resolution that would give the international community broad authority to achieve Qaddafi's removal, including the use of force beyond the imposition of a no-fly zone.

Speaking before the U.N. Security Council following Thursday's 10-0 vote, Rice made the humanitarian argument that force was needed in Libya to prevent civilian suffering.

"Colonel Qaddafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental human rights of Libya's people," Rice said. "On March 12, the League of Arab States called on the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone and take other measures to protect civilians. Today's resolution is a powerful response to that call-and to the urgent needs on the ground."

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), "a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

"Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community's determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government," he said.

Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America's core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P -- over the objections of Donilon and Gates.

Congress was not broadly consulted on the decision to intervene in Libya, except in a Thursday afternoon classified briefing where administration officials explained the diplomatic and military plan. Rice was already deep in negotiations in New York.

Obama's Tuesday night decision to push for armed intervention was not only a defining moment in his ever-evolving foreign policy, but also may have marked the end of the alliance between Clinton and Gates -- an alliance that has successfully influenced administration foreign policy decisions dating back to the 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.

"Gates is clearly not on board with what's going on and now the Defense Department may have an entirely another war on its hands that he's not into," said Clemons. "Clinton won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen."

Talk about a Trainwreck - Massachusetts Commuter Rail hands out big $$$ to Unions and sticks it to the riders....what a way to run a railroad!!

Two News stories.....another case of unbelievable stupidity and incompetence costing the middle class extra while rewarding those who can't get the job done.......you be the judge.

1st has been the all winter long saga of the local commuter rail service in Massachusetts - Bad service, late trains, broken down trains and poor performance all around.

Mass. GOP senators call for commuter rail hearings
By Associated Press
Monday, March 7, 2011 - Added 2 weeks ago

BOSTON - The four Republican members of the Massachusetts Senate are calling for legislative oversight hearings on the spate of recent service interruptions and mechanical failures at the MBTA.

GOP Senate Leader Bruce Tarr said the group is asking the chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation and the chairman of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee to hold one or more hearings to figure out the causes of the problems and to come up with some solutions.

The MBTA’s commuter rail trains have been plagued with delays during the winter, including a four-hour ordeal for passengers trying to get from Boston to Worcester last week

The service has been dismal, the trains are old, the cost is high ($250 a month for a monthly pass and $4 a day to park at the T station)

Sooooo....what gets printed on page B11 of the Saturday paper next to the Obituaries in the Boston Globe????

THIS does -

Commuter rail pact includes wage increase
Talks continue with other unions
By L. Finch
Globe Correspondent / March 19, 2011

Unions representing Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Co. conductors and locomotive engineers agreed to a new contract Thursday, ending more than two years of negotiations. Labor talks continue, however, between the remaining commuter rail unions and the company, officials said.

The new four-year contracts with the Brotherhood of the Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the United Transportation Union afford a total 13.7 percent wage increase to members including retroactive pay to July 2009, include a $1,000 signing bonus, and cap employee health coverage contributions at $100 per month, according to statements released by the unions yesterday. This marks the first time MBCR employees will contribute to their health insurance costs; the company previously covered 100 percent of health insurance premiums.

The agreement, which runs through July 2013, also raises the layover pay for employees forced to wait for more than an hour between train routes, from half-time to five-eighths time.


ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? No wonder they have needed to charge us higher costs !! They have been footing the full bill for the healthcare all along (at the same time the public pays the full cost for our healthcare) and now that the union members will be asked to pay, they cap it at $100 a month !!! That is $25 a WEEK...who do you know has family healthcare for $25 a week....and they will get 13.7% pay increase and a $1000 signing bonus.....what a racket.

The public gets screwed, the trains are still old, not maintained, broken down and the Union idiots walk away with all of the $$$ and benefits they can haul.....the riders get screwed and the Unions walk away with the benefit. And of course, the Boston Globe buries the story on the back of the paper next to the Obits.

INCOMPETENCE of the highest order by the public sector and those who put these feckless idiots in charge of running the commuter rail which so many have to depend upon. The middle class who need this service to get to work takes another hit and the Politicians turn a blind eye to the gouging of the public....pissa.

British Press label Obama as " THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY"

The British Press pretty much calls it like it is....Now if FOX NEWS had published this story, it would be seen as partisan and racist....The Brits don't really have a stake in the game and this view falls under the standard of the "3rd disinterested observer's point-of-view" which is usually the most accurate.

The hosts of TOP GEAR are always asking the following question when they see something going horribly wrong and it would seem to be appropriate regarding the feckless "empty suit" sitting in the White House;

" HOW HARD CAN IT BE ????"


BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?
President Barack Obama's supporters believed that he had the vision to transform America
Friday March 18,2011
By Anna Pukas

INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn.....

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions
and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearly defined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organisations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness. Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism. He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action. The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realise they want).

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all. So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those than can, do. It is time he started doing

Losing his base....

Posting diverse opinions can encourage thoughtful debate.....

Looks like the empty-suit-in-residence at the White House is losing his base...rapidly.

To Mr. Robintte, I say, " What took you so long??" - Most of us saw this coming more than four years ago when we recognized that a Community Organizer from Chicago was NOT the person the country needed as a Senator from Illinois, let alone the Chief Executive for our Nation.....Now, we need to find a suitable replacement, and that is also becoming a difficult task.

We need true leadership and we need it yesterday.

Posted: Monday, 14 March 2011 10:55AM

“Pres. Obama, I too am exhausted defending you.”
Garland Robinette Reporting - 870am, 105.3fm, WWL.com.

“President Obama, quite frankly, I’m exhausted defending you. Mr. President, is this my new reality?”

Those words were spoken to President Obama on September 20th, 2010 during a town hall meeting in Washington. The speaker identified herself as a CFO of a large national organization, a mother, a wife, and an American veteran.

Mr. President, I'm Garland Robinette...me too. I’m totally exhausted. I'm one of the few (possibly the only) radio talk show hosts in the south who admits that I like and admire you. I've liked and disliked all of our Presidents for various reasons. I've admired your intelligence, calm and reasoned communication skills. Some of your programs I like a lot, parts of others still work for me, and others I find much to disagree with. I'm one of the few remaining "journalists" who really does try to see all sides. I don't join “fear clubs” (Republicans and Democrats.) I don't need to be told what to think and how to vote. I think you need people like me, but for me it's too late...you can put me in the “minus one” category. Aside from being exhausted defending you, I'm now doubting my daughter and wife's security…their future in this country. Your energy policies are incredibly contradictory, uneducated, and extremely dangerous. Either you are not the Harvard-backed brain I thought you were, or you're getting unbelievably bad information from your advisors.

What finally knocked me out of your camp was your speech last Friday…the one about energy. Let's break it down into specifics.

1. You admitted that oil and gas prices affect everybody, "For Americans already facing a tough time it's an added burden." You emphasized the middle class.

Question: If a lack of it (oil) is an "added burden for Americans facing tough times,” why don't we go everywhere that we can to find it? I wrote a blog yesterday about you and T-Boone Pickens (famous oil man) saying "we can't drill our way out of this problem" (lack of energy). I think the blog pointed out the lunacy of that statement. Switch that belief to food. Use the hypothetical of a looming food shortage. Use corn as the oil analogy. It’s finite; we have to use it as bio-fuel. We can't "corn raise" our way out of the problem? So we quit growing more corn, because it will one day run out as a food source? We don't continue eating and growing more of it as a bridge while we're using science and research to find a substitute? I know you don't agree, but this makes me look at a Harvard graduate and say…contradictory, uneducated and increasingly dangerous.

2. You said, "Now the hard truth is, that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil we’re subject to price spikes.” Let me be more specific. First we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil."

Question: The figures I read say 86 billion barrels offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, 10 billion barrels in the Arctic and 800 billion barrels in oil shale in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and even more in Canada. These holdings are reportedly three times larger than Saudi Arabia reserves. Mr. President, have your energy advisors told you we are swimming in low cost, high quality fuel in Cushing, Oklahoma? Cushing is a main trading hub for oil. But there is a problem; we can't get any of that cheaper oil here in the south and much of the east. We have to buy expensive oil from other parts of the world. Why? I'm sure your experts told you Cushing doesn't have enough pipelines coming to us or the east, and there’s so much oil that America doesn’t have enough trains and tankers to get it to us. So, again the question…you said, "First we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil"...but not with any of the above current availabilities? Feeling my exhaustion?

3. You said, "Our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years. Oil production from the Gulf and Mexico reached an all-time high. We've approved more than 35 new offshore drilling permits."

Question: But it takes 7-10 years to gear up to bring oil to the surface after it's found, so other administrations are responsible for the additional oil, not yours. In particular, the new technology that takes out oil shale in the Dakotas. The Energy Information Administration (you know the one under your Department of Energy) projects there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day this year. The EIA says the number is 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico. Seven major rigs have left the Gulf to sign multi-year contracts in other countries. Do you just not know this? Do you think just because the media is a sad pile reflected conservative and liberal dogma that no one fact checks anymore? All time high Gulf oil production? Here are numbers I've found. 55 rigs in the Gulf drilling four days before the Deepwater Horizon explosion. May 2010, your six month moratorium was announced, then there were 46. Last week (3-11-11) the count was 25. Here comes that exhaustion again.

4. You've "directed the Department of the Interior to determine (in two weeks) why the oil companies aren't developing federal leases they currently hold.”

Question: How can I find these answers? Your experts apparently don't know why…and now only have two weeks to find out. Let's see, well…oil companies won't drill unless there is oil under the lease. Not all have oil. To find out if one does, it takes years of geological surveying, testing, and many, many, many of your environmental studies before drilling can even begin...like...7-10 years. Plus, after spending tens of millions of dollars and finding oil, they need to lease not just the spot where they drill, but tens of thousands of surrounding acres. If oil companies don't lease the land, competitors could simply drill nearby without spending millions and suck out the other guys oil just like a straw in a milk-shake. So what company would be so stupid as to not buy the surrounding leases that they’re not going to drill on? Surely, President Obama you must have someone who tells you this? Does anybody understand my exhaustion with this? Oops, almost forgot, as of June 2008 The New York Times reported that "almost 100 percent of the oil companies are constrained in their investment program, because there are no rigs available.”

5. "We're taking steps that will enable us to gather data on potential gas and oil resources of the mid-and south Atlantic". #^$%#&WAIT-WAIT-WAIT!!

Question: What? Where did that come from, Mr. President? You couldn't have gotten permission from Robert Kennedy Jr., or Al Gore, or John Kerry, Greenpeace…they're all too busy fighting windmills off the east coast (see Sunday edition New York Times -- "NOT IN MY LIBERAL BACKYARD.” They’re referring to any alternative energy…oil drilling would be obviously out of the question. You couldn't have meant any other east coast state, they’re all against oil exploration. But I'm sure you heard...didn't you?

6. "We're looking at potential new development in Alaska both onshore and offshore.” #(_#&@#*#)#*$-WAIT-WAIT-WAIT!!!

Question: You are, Mr. President? Since when? But you said there was barely enough there to sustain a 3 to 5 years supply, so why muck up the moose trails? You said we're not going to drill our way out of this problem?

7. "We're working to diversify our entire portfolio with historic developments in clean energy. I set a goal for 80% clean energy by 2035, with wind, solar, natural gas, clean coal, and gas and nuclear power.” LOL nuclear power. LOL. NYMBY. Japan…the best device-quake proof plants ever? Raise your hand if you want one in your backyard. If you don't believe that industry is dead, simply google “geothermal plays in San Francisco, cause earthquakes, efforts abandoned.” Then google “geothermal plays in Switzerland (check this Ambian) caused earthquakes and the process was shutdown. “ Google “multi-earthquakes in Arkansas caused by natural gas drilling.” Read all about earthquake fears along the Mississippi river.

Question: Actually not a question…just a low moan like the Titanic in the movie (on the way down). This is where I pass out because I fear you're getting dizzy. Have you even introduced yourself to your head of the department of energy, Steven Chu? He got a big old Nobel Prize on his mantel for his work in physics, biology, and alternative energy…little old schools like Stanford, Lawrence Berkley National labs, and Bell Labs. He must not have seen you mention in your SOTU speech about a certain professor at Cal-Tech and others at Stanford who have mastered the art of photosynthesis to the power of the sun times ten. But Mr. Chu must know that Professor Nathan Lewis agrees that we have the capability to meet the President's goal, we just have no way to implement that capability. Whadayasay we look at the alternatives?

8. Mr. President, you said, "We’ve got to make sure we have sufficient supplies, an example would be during Hurricane Katrina when you've got a whole bunch of refineries that have been impacted all along the Gulf."

Question: Sufficient supplies? Right. You do know we haven't built a refinery in this country in over 30 years, right? So, how do you maintain our supplies during a category 5 hurricane, when you have no alternative refineries? The polls should have educated you a long time ago; the country doesn't like or believe in “Big Oil” and often scream NRIMBY (no refineries in my back yard).

9. Mr. President, you even admit that China, India, and Brazil will need more oil as their economies improve. Have your advisors given you the numbers? Try 22 billion new barrels per day. The world consumes 85-86 billion per day. The oil industry has never produced more than 88 million barrels a day. Out of that 88, the U.S. is demanding 20 million barrels a day. Can you tell me again, why we wouldn't drill for every little drop of oil in this country? Plus, do you really think everything will go back to the "quiet ole days" in the Middle East?

10. Mr. President, you even admitted, "In fact, a lot of folks who are having the toughest times, who are either unemployed or have low-wage jobs, they're the ones that are most severely affected because they're using a higher portion of their income just to fill up their tanks.”

Question: Isn’t that every reason to drill everything we can find, until we find the magic elixir to replace oil?

And, one final question, Mr. President: For those west and east coast communities who don't want oil drilling…can we arrange a legal agreement by which they vote NOT to use any more gas than they do at this time? You know, like a rationing card? It's what they say they want? We take all the risks here on the Gulf Coast, yet receive virtually no royalties. Isn't it only fair that we not send them what they don't want? We're getting a little tired of their lack and knowledge or hypocrisy; they seem to reflect the same in you.

It’s really exhausting…

(and it has been so for most Americans for the better part of the last two years.)

" DOPRAH "doesn't get it.....She tries to scold Americans for not showing enough respect to President Obama - She's the one who is clueless....

"DOPRAH" just doesn't get it......she has reached a point where she feels " entitled " to whatever she wants, no matter how ridiculous. What else would you expect from a selfish narcissist????

She feels that POTUS " deserves respect " - what a stupid statement

Let me spell it out for you, you fat, feckless cow.... RESPECT must be EARNED. Period.

It is not "deserved" by anyone. To say so shows a glaring lack of understanding what " RESPECT " means....

Let's examine the definition: Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity (such as a nation ), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.

While all should respect the office of the Presidency, the man in the position has to earn the respect of the people by his actions and how he handles the job. With negative ratings holding steady in the low 50s, a "I know what's better for you than you do" attitude, acting clueless on the economy, jobs and foreign policy, it is difficult to imagine how he or DOPRAH could feel they " deserve respect.....no one "deserves it....it must be earned.

Why would self-centered DOPRAH think that way ??? Because she, along with POTUS & FLOTUS are clueless and out of snyc with the American people.....POTUS came in promising Hope & Change but only change we have seen is him blaming everyone and everything for his inability to handle the job....he has not earned anything but our continuing dissatisfaction with his poor performance.....

And as for you thinking you can lecture me or any other free-thinking American about how we can disagree with you and the Idjit-in-Charge, I have two words for you, and they ain't " Happy Birthday "

Do us all a favor, shove some more Mac N'Cheese in that big fat pie-hole of yours so we don't have to listen to any more of your stupidity.....


Obama 'deserves respect' says Oprah Winfrey as she blasts critics of the President in a television interview
By Daily Mail 11th February 2011

The first lady of television has called on critics of President Obama to show 'some level of respect' - even if they weren't in support of his policies.

Speaking on a special edition of Morning Joe today, Oprah Winfrey said the presidency is a position that 'holds a sense of authority and governance over us all'.

'I feel that everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him is because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart.

'I believe that what he really wants is for this country to be greater, stronger more innovative. Those principles are what really enforces his beliefs.'

Speaking about the current negative mood of the country Oprah quipped: 'Everybody complaining ought to try it (the presidency) for a week.

Middleboro Jones would gladly relieve him of his job.....even I could do a better job than this feckless idiot.

ART IMITATES LIFE - POTUS BECOMES NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

HISTORY

16th September 1938: Neville Chamberlain (1869 - 1940) prime minister, arrives back at Heston aerodrome after his appeasement meeting with Adolf Hitler.

TODAY - ART IMITATES LIFE...


POTUS repeats history, not because his political foes are as bad as Germany, but simply because he is as feckless, incompetent and as clueless as Neville Chamberlain was....He had control of both houses of Congress and he still couldn't get it done....He was self-absorbed and turned a deaf ear to the real needs of the American people - instead he spent our treasure on the STIMULUS, which is nothing more than a slush fund for his political friends, and a Healthcare Bill that is the most wasteful and screwed up bill ever produced by Congress...They weren't even reading the bill before they passed it....His Presidency was like handing the keys to a brand new car to a teenager, then watching as POTUS drove our country into the ditch and then tried to blame it on everyone else.

The American people could have elected better but bought into the dreck that the media fed them and that brings us to today, with an American President that emboldens our enemies and imperils us as he cannot even handle things at home...

Maybe he should have listened to another voice out of history.....

“ Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised.”

Andrew Carnegie (Scottish born American Industrialist and Philanthropist. 1835-1919)

It is OBVIOUS that POTUS never had any principles to start with....his favorite thing to do is admiring himself in the mirror while looking down his nose at those in our country who try to work hard and earn a living.

So if POTUS is Neville Chamberlain, where is our WINSTON CHURCHILL now that we need him more than ever????

Points to ponder

My Dad always said that the only thing you could trust was truthful in the Newspapers was the Funnies....seems like Dad knew what he was talking about. No surprise here as Dad always had it right....That's for sure.

ON TARGET...one could only hope

Like the firearms instructors use to tell us, " Go for Center Mass " - too funny

And so it starts....Opinion piece in the Washington Post states the obvious - POTUS is a likley a "ONE & DONE" President

This opinion piece from today's WASH POST should not be any great surprise. based on the outcome of the midterm elections, this is the logical outcome of the "shellacking" taken by the President. Hell, he even struck out overseas as the other countries see him as an intellectual but ineffective leader.

His own party has been speaking about the idea of Hillary Clinton wresting the nomination away from POTUS....This is just the start of "storm clouds" on the political horizon of "Barry from Chicago". Maybe he needs to follow Rahm Emmanuel back to Chicago....that might be the best of all worlds fr him and more importantly, our country.

Opinion One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012

By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Sunday, November 14, 2010; Washington Post

President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."

It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign.

Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke repeatedly of his desire to end the red-state-blue-state divisions in America and to change the way Washington works. This was a central reason he was elected; such aspirations struck a deep chord with the polarized electorate.

Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.

Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.

And for Democrats such as current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) - who has said that entitlement reform is dead on arrival - the president's new posture would make it much harder to be inflexible. Given the influence of special interests on the Democratic Party, Obama would be much more effective as a figure who could remain above the political fray. Challenges such as boosting economic growth and reducing the deficit are easier to tackle if you're not constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and unions.

Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway. If they didn't, they would look intransigent, as the GOP did in 1995 and 1996, when Bill Clinton first advocated a balanced budget. Obama could then go to the Democrats for tough cuts to entitlements and look to the Republicans for difficult cuts on defense.

On foreign policy, Obama could better make hard decisions about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the United States, without the political constraints of a looming election. He would be able to deal with a Democratic constituency that wants to get out of Afghanistan immediately and a Republican constituency that is committed to the war, forging a course that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground.

If the president adopts our suggestion, both sides will be forced to compromise. The alternative, we fear, will put the nation at greater risk. While we believe that Obama can be reelected, to do so he will have to embark on a scorched-earth campaign of the type that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election, which divided Americans in ways that still plague us.

Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.

Should the president do that, he - and the country - would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public.

It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.

We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.

Patrick H. Caddell, who was a pollster and senior adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is a political commentator. Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System." They will be online Monday, Nov. 15, at 11 a.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions before or during the discussion.

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

YOU CAN"T MAKE THIS CRAP UP - Rahm Emanuel Gets a Dead Fish At White House Send-off

What symbolism....what a perfect analogy for the work done at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over the last 20 months.... A Flippin' Dead Fish....not the first time it has been associated with this White House (see enclosed picture)

In Baseball, a "Dead Fish" is slang for a "Pitch thrown with very little speed" (one that will get knocked out of the park with very little difficulty)

The worst handshake you can offer another man is " The Dead Fish ", aka a limp hand shake (also perfect symbolism for the present White House)

Based on decorum, we will not go into detail on the other street slang meaning for what constitutes a "Dead Fish"....suffice to say it is also a great symbol for the Feckless Idjits who have been inhabiting the West Wing....

So look out Chicago....you're next on the list of places where Rahm will act like he is the smartest person in the city, where in fact, he is as relevant as the lifeless Asian Carp he got as a present....some staffers really know how to show a guy how much they care....Bloody Brilliant !


A Teary Emanuel Gets Dead Fish At White House Send-off
October 01, 2010 9:55 AM - ABC NEWS

PrintRSSShare:EmailMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooAt the 8:30 staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room this morning, departing chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was given a gift by Council of Economic Advisers chair Austan Goolsbee: a dead Asian carp.

This was an allusion to the Emanuel legend of his sending a dead fish to a pollster for whom he didn’t care, replicating the scene from The Godfather when the Corleones were alerted of Luca Brasi’s death with a dead fish wrapped in Brasi’s bullet-proof vest. The specific species was a reference to Emanuel’s focus as a member of Congress and White House chief of staff on the aggressive, invasive Asian carp, bane of the Great Lakes, a plankton-devouring creature heading towards Chicago.

Goolsbee said: “I talked to the policy team and we wanted to give you a going away present—something to show how we feel about you but also shows we understand your new possibilities. I was the natural go between—I voted for you all three times you ran for Congress and even in that first primary. So here is your present.”

Emanuel opened the package, which was wrapped in copies of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune.

“This is a dead fish!” he said.

Goolsbee: “To most people, it looks like a dead fish. But to a future mayor of Chicago, it looks like a dead Asian Carp. And you’ll be happy to know that it wasn’t easy to find one of these”

Said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “In Chicago, this is how friends say goodbye.”

Emanuel, who got teary during the staff meeting, told staffers that he knows that he pushed staffers “very hard. But I did it in service to the president. And I believe that our whole country is better off for it.”

Staffers gave him a standing ovation.